Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment & Land Case E032 of 2022· [2023] KEELC 21022 (KLR)

Ngure v Ndungu & another

Environment and Land Court
26 October 2023
2,373 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court reinstated a land fraud lawsuit that had been struck out, ruling that missing court deadlines is not always the end of a case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by FM Njoroge J of the Environment and Land Court determined the plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 31/01/2023 seeking reinstatement of his suit, which had been struck out on 25/01/2023 for failure to comply with orders issued on 22/11/2022 (filing an affidavit of service within 7 days and a trial bundle within 30 days). The plaintiff, through his counsel Peter Chege, explained that counsel had been ill and on bed rest, causing late filing of the affidavit of service and trial bundle on 03/01/2023, outside the ordered timelines. The 2nd defendant, Palsunter Capital Limited, opposed, arguing the suit was struck out under Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and could not be reinstated under Order 12 Rule 7; the plaintiff's recourse was review or appeal, and the application was an abuse of process. The court framed a single issue: whether the suit should be reinstated. It held that reinstatement is discretionary under the court's inherent power in Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; that failure to cite the correct provisions is not fatal; and that, given the plaintiff's claim is one of fraud and he would suffer great prejudice, the interest of justice favoured reinstatement. The application was allowed in terms of prayer 3, with costs of the application to the 2nd defendant, borne by the applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a suit struck out for non-attendance/non-compliance can be reinstated under the court's discretion

Holding

Yes - the court exercised its inherent discretion under Section 3A and reinstated the suit, holding it was in the interest of justice given the fraud claim and potential prejudice.

Reasoning

The court noted reinstatement is discretionary. Although the plaintiff filed the affidavit of service and trial bundle outside the timelines ordered on 22/11/2022, counsel's illness was proffered as explanation. Given that the plaintiff's claim is one of fraud, the court found reinstatement was in the interest of justice and that the plaintiff would suffer great prejudice if the suit were not reinstated.

02

Whether the plaintiff's reliance on Order 12 Rule 7 rather than the provision under which the suit was struck out was fatal

Holding

No - failure to cite the correct provisions is a mere flaw, not fatal to the application.

Reasoning

The 2nd defendant argued the suit was struck out under Order 2 Rule 15 and could not be reinstated under Order 12 Rule 7, and that review or appeal were the only recourses. The court held no legal provision was cited for the review-or-appeal argument, and that citing the wrong provisions is a curable flaw, relying on its earlier ruling of 22/05/2023.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Reinstatement of a suit is discretionary and governed by the court's inherent power under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
  • Failure to cite the appropriate provisions of the law is not fatal to an application; it is a mere flaw that can be amended.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's application dated 31/1/2023 is allowed in terms of prayer 3 (reinstatement of the suit for hearing)
  2. 2.Only the 2nd defendant shall be entitled to the costs of the application, to be borne by the applicant in any event

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 12 Rule 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 5 Rule 17
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 50
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)

Cases cited (9)

  • John Nahashon Mwangi v Kenya Finance Bank Limited (in liquidation)
    [2015] eKLR

    Reinstatement ensures a litigant does not suffer injustice or hardship from excusable error or mistake

  • Philip Chemowolo & another v Augustine Kubende
    [1982-88] 1 KAR 103

    Discretion to set aside orders in the interest of justice

  • Shah v Mbogo & another
    [1967] EA 1116

    Discretion to set aside/reinstate

  • Lochab Brothers Limited v Peter Kaluma t/a Lumumba Mumma & Kaluma Advocates & 2 Others
    [2013] eKLR

    Reinstatement principles

  • Ivita v Kyumba
    [1984] KLR 441

    Reinstatement principles

  • Belinda Murai & another v Amoi Wainaina (No. 4)
    Court of Appeal at Nairobi March 8, 1979 [1989]

    Reinstatement principles

  • David Ondimu Kombo v Belcom Agencies Limited
    [2021] eKLR

    Striking out for disobedience of court orders

  • Harun Kiptarus Tanui v East African Portland Cement PLC
    [2022] eKLR

    Discretion must be exercised judiciously

  • Law Society of Kenya v Center for Human Rights & Democracy & 12 Others
    [2014] eKLR

    Article 159 is not a blanket for parties' failure to adhere to law or procedure

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent power); Order 12 Rule 7 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngure v Ndungu & another", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E032 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21022/eng@2023-10-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.